Here's an idea: as a first step, simplify everything, and make sure you're aware how your stack works, and what it imports.

As an example: WordPress is a horrible thing, but the core has been through so much, that it's suprisingly secure. Then plugins and themes come, and whoosh, the security is gone.

We need a new KISS: keep it simple, stupid, secure.

The "surprisingly secure" WordPress just had a unauthenticated RCE earlier this year. Just simplifying isn't going to be enough.

https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/cve-2026-63030

If that's your benchmark for being unsecure, then React is unsecure too.

https://react.dev/blog/2025/12/03/critical-security-vulnerab...

I would put both of those projects in the category of things I wouldn't call remarkably secure, yes.

To be remarkably secure, these projects would need to not have these kinds of defects, despite the combination of being written in languages have that have a long track record of footguns and lack of initiatives to fix them (proposal-symbol-proto, and PHP's list is too long to even start) and being themselves ecosystems with questionable track records on security in the related areas (Look at $wpdb in 2026, or overall code quality and willingness to modernize, or the entirety of the model of RSC for things that are just going to nearly guarantee you punch all kinds of holes on accident).

WordPress and secure don't go together in the same sentence.

I mean the base is fairly secure if you religiously update it, but the problem is you won't avoid using plugins whose security is much more hit and miss, unless you are using the most basic blog site imaginable.

"First step"

Nobody said it's enough, but it's a start.

Plus, how secure are the plugins?

WP plugins are why I banned it everywhere. Last time I used it was many years ago, so not sure it still applies, but back then even caching was done in a plugin, without which it was unusably slow… just no.

Static sites all the way (hugo, jekyll, mkdocs!). No one needs wordpress. There's even Sveltia or DecapCMS now, to give those WYSIWYG-people access to static site editing. Then, remove PHP and all the dependency overhead and attack surface and you have a stripped down nginx that is pretty simple, minimalistic and bulletproof.

> Static sites all the way (hugo, jekyll, mkdocs!). No one needs wordpress.

Maybe. A better question may be about how many people need to have the dynamic part of Wordpress live on the Internet? How many would be served well enough with the CMS aspects of Wordpress on the 'backend', but have it spit out static files for the 'frontend':

* https://wordpress.org/plugins/simply-static/

* https://wpstatic.site

The problem is no one ever built one that works for normal people.

Most Wordpress sites are not operated by programmers, they are run by non technical people who just want a wysiwyg editor and a save button. While static site builders ask you to write markdown files, compile the result, upload it to a server, and if you want to collaborate you have to add git to that.

There almost needs to be an admin app which presents a Wordpress admin like ui but has no public exposure, and then it compiles the site to dump on s3 for the production. But as far as I’m aware no one has built this.

Movable type was the most popular blogging software in 2003 and it was essentially this. An admin app written in Perl that spit out static files.

It is kind of surprising that no one tried to do an updated version.

> The problem is no one ever built one that works for normal people.

https://getpublii.com/

Yes, you are right and I agree, there's little empathy with non-coders generally.

https://jamstack.org

You're describing the Jamstack or headless CMS concept verbatim.

Is this not it? https://pagescms.org/

Pour one out for FrontPage

Ahhh the old positioning with  

I fixed so many sites back in the day by people who thought they knew what they were doing.

City Desk. Where is Joel when we need him!

Retired and probably just chilling around the world.

I mean, github pages using the github editor to edit docs pretty much fits that bill

not for "run by non technical people who just want a wysiwyg editor and a save button"

php is probably about as secure as nginx. big old bundles of C

The reason is simple - nothing really bad has happened that we can point at and say "ah, shit, let's all learn collectively". I know it sounds naive when I say it, but there hasn't been a significantly consequential hack, leak, destruction, or anything related to cybersecurity where it led for concerns of people.

The main thing I can think of is cyber insurance, which requires a bunch of audits, and some checks maybe, and it changes some conditions whenever there's a big explosion. Whenever big leaks happened, data security and etc., nobody really went to jail, so nobody really cares. Everything can be brushed off, because it costs time to implement proper measures and adds friction / barriers in some cases. So in the end, there's a huge pushback against it. And I totally get it, to be honest.

Maersk[1] might be the worst so far (and that was ransomware rather than state-sponsored aggression). It's still too niche for most people to care about.

[1] https://www.wired.com/story/notpetya-cyberattack-ukraine-rus...

> The reason is simple - nothing really bad has happened that we can point at and say "ah, shit, let's all learn collectively". I know it sounds naive when I say it, but there hasn't been a significantly consequential hack, leak, destruction, or anything related to cybersecurity where it led for concerns of people.

How consequential does a hack need to be? Troy has collected literally billions of stolen credentials. Equifax has had high profile data leaks. Tens of millions of people have been directly compromised by ransomware (likely higher because that’s just the cases we know of) and you hear about state-sponsored hacks in the news all the time.

The problem isn’t that computer security isn’t in the public consciousness. The problem is people are lazy and security often requires trading convenience. The problem is also that security isn’t free. So the business incentives just isn’t there.

In other fields of engineering, people die when shortcuts are taken. Yet businesses will still take shortcuts, so governments have to legislate rules to save people’s lives. So why would you expect software companies to do better when the stakes are lower?

People aren't that lazy. The organizations getting hacked by ransomware aren't particularly lazy, they're often pretty productive within their domain. Hospitals, airports, etc.

The actual problem is that computer security is a black hole. If you let it, it will suck in everything and destroy it. Nobody knows what works so you can spend infinite amounts of time and money on it, then still get popped by a teenager in Belarus. Your security team will accept no responsibility for this, there will be no falling on swords or personal liability, and they will just use it to demand even more money in an infinite spiral.

So the average executive looks at this situation and says, OK, something we can put infinity effort into and still suddenly fail at without warning is a total non-starter. What are we obliged to do? How do we show we made an effort?

And that's how you end up with a culture oriented around passing audits. It's not wrong, and it's not lazy. It's just really hard to do better because it's not clear how to set budgets without a concrete goal to aim for.

That’s not been my experience at all when working in DevSecOps.

What actually happens in organisations is they define risks and then sign off what risks they’re willing to accept.

Any business that looks at security as a binary value is running their business wrong. Period.

And yes, people really are that lazy. There are countless studies that have shown just how lazy people are. It’s why shadow IT is a big problem in many orgs. And why consumers are constantly taken advantage of

> Tens of millions of people have been directly compromised by ransomware (likely higher because that’s just the cases we know of) and you hear about state-sponsored hacks in the news all the time.

With no consequences. Everyone just churns along. It might be detrimental to the business a little bit, but from my personal experience, there's more effort in creating DR processes, rather than preventing an attack, exploit, leak and etc.

I'm also not going to put much effort on stuff which has small returns in the worst case scenario. Like Equifax got hacked in 2017, and company is still doing fine. And that's like top tier data one could acquire.

Like I said, even in actual engineering companies will take shortcuts. And then what happens is the government has to step in. But there’s no appetite for government involvement in the tech sector in the US. And everyone moans when the EU does.

But why should the government should step in? Nothing of a big problem is happening. Like it all sounds bad and awful, in the end dilutes into a nothingburger and gets forgotten.

As you started the conversation, companies never face consequences so are never incentivised. I’m not saying I’m in favour of regulation but if I were to answer your question: the reason one might argue for government intervention is precisely because of your point that self-regulation has failed to incentivise.

Listening to eskil’s talk from the better software conference, he said in order to stand on the shoulders of giants they must first stand still. I really like that metaphor, because it basically suggests today’s apps that have sprawling unaudited dependency graphs that change all the time is effectively teetering on the shoulders of stumbling giants. The visual seems very apt for the how brittle our current software industry feels.

I agree with that statement, but disagree with "The visual seems very apt for the how brittle our current software industry feels". It feels brittle, but for every single supply-chain-attack that has happened in the past year, nothing of significant was felt. So in the end, it seems like we're doing okayishly well.

> as a first step, simplify everything, and make sure you're aware how your stack works, and what it imports.

We've been trying that for years but the enthusiasm of developers and the eagerness of their employers fight against it. Worse, with coding LLMs it's now easier than ever to output a lot of code, fast.

It'll ultimately be up to more experienced developers to salvage these projects. Or not, given that the coding LLMs aren't stopping and will likely get better over time. Either way, we will need experienced people that know what to look out for / know how to instruct LLMs to output secure code and find weaknesses etc.

> We need a new KISS: keep it simple, stupid, secure.

Maybe KISSASS: "keep it simple, stupid! also secure, stupid!"

Minimization of 3rd party dependencies has always been a key for risk reduction. Now more than ever before.

Some stacks make this a lot easier than others. I regret the rules of HN effectively forbid this conversation because it has meaningful technical consequences and isn't purely about ideological flame war.

Yes, and also run routine tests and check-ups!

I personally check my websites and apps every week to see if anything might have slipped through.

It may not protect me from the next malicious NPM package, but it's something.

The problem is that lots of people don't want a CMS, they want a platform for development / e-commerce / bookings / whatever. Enforcing vanilla WordPress would push people towards other platforms. Now that could be a good thing, but I doubt WordPress are going to start killing their own marketshare with usage restrictions like that...

Probably nine out of ten Wordpress sites do not need active content. Why are we not rendering static copies and serving them to customers?

This is not at all easy though. Most Wordpress users are not software companies. They contract some work out to set it up, maybe some recurring maintenance but they don’t have in house development experience.

If they have a site existing today built on plugins and a theme, how are they realistically going to simplify this? How would they even know they need to without the site being hacked?

Wordpress without any plugins is kinda useless. Best to completely avoid using it, there are better options

[deleted]